Corrections to the document and its position papers https://mosthofaimran.com/errata.xml 2026-08-14T00:00:00Z Mosthofa Imranhey@mosthofaimran.com CC BY 4.0 tag:mosthofaimran.com,2026:errata/7.5 2026-08-14T00:00:00Z

Section 5 listed fourteen papers. One carried an argument. The other thirteen carried a title, a summary, a confidence value and a date, and the index called that state `unwritten` rather than pretending otherwise, which was the correct handling of a gap but was still a gap. Those thirteen now carry a body, at least one figure, and the retirement conditions the schema requires of anything presented as an argument. Paper 5.1 gained the three sections it had listed as outstanding since first publication. The retracted 5.10 has its original text restored, struck through, with a new section stating what failed. No confidence value moved. The states shown on the index (holding, revising, draft) are the ones this document declared before the bodies existed, so the papers now agree with the index rather than the index being revised to fit them. The publication dates and revision histories carried by papers 5.2 through 5.14 are the prototype's illustrative dates and are registered as such in the placeholder ledger; the arguments and the retirement conditions are new as of this date and have not yet had an editorial pass.

tag:mosthofaimran.com,2026:errata/7.6 2026-08-14T00:00:00Z

Section 8 said "no third-party script on the page". Section 10 said third-party requests were "None. No fonts, no analytics, no tag manager". Appendix B said "no script in the reading path and no third-party request of any kind". For every visitor using an actual browser, all three were false. Cloudflare Web Analytics was enabled on the `mosthofaimran.com` zone and injected `static.cloudflareinsights.com/beacon.min.js` as a module script into every HTML response. I did not put it in the build and it is not in the repository, which is exactly why it went unnoticed: `dist/` was clean, and so was every check that read `dist/`. It survived because the injection is conditional. Cloudflare only rewrites responses to browser-shaped requests, so `curl` was served clean HTML and reported success. The post-deploy verification I had added the same day used `curl`, and passed. The build-time budget check reads `dist/` and passed. Two green checks, both correct about what they measured, and neither measuring what the claim was about. The Content-Security-Policy almost certainly stopped the beacon from executing, since `script-src` names only the hashes of this site's own JSON-LD blocks. That is mitigation, not a defence: the tag was in the served HTML, the request was attempted, and "no third-party script on the page" was still not a true sentence. The claim was about what is sent, not about what survives the policy. `scripts/check-live.mjs` now asserts both budgets against the live origin using a browser User-Agent, and runs after every deploy. It fails today, correctly, and will keep failing until the setting is turned off. The same class of defect was already on record for Email Address Obfuscation in T05, and it was not generalised at the time to the other feature that rewrites HTML. That was the actual mistake.

tag:mosthofaimran.com,2026:errata/7.1 2026-08-02T00:00:00Z

Two readers demonstrated the effect reproduces in private mailing lists with no ranking algorithm present, which breaks the mechanism proposed. Section 3 of that paper is being rewritten and currently says so at the top. Reported by A. Rahman and K. Osei.

tag:mosthofaimran.com,2025:errata/7.2 2025-11-14T00:00:00Z

The central claim failed. Retrieval quality at scale turned out to depend on index properties I had dismissed, and the operational story matured faster than I predicted. What I was actually right about was narrower and less quotable. Original text preserved, struck through, with this note attached at the head.

tag:mosthofaimran.com,2025:errata/7.3 2025-06-30T00:00:00Z

The June 2025 ingest incident traced to a retry path with backoff and no budget, in code I reviewed and approved. Ninety-four minutes of degraded intake. Postmortem published unredacted, including the review comment where I did not ask the question.

tag:mosthofaimran.com,2025:errata/7.4 2025-02-11T00:00:00Z

Milliseconds, not seconds. The conclusion was unaffected but the chart was flattering by a factor of a thousand, which is exactly the kind of error that should be published rather than quietly swapped. Reported by S. Datta.